DNC chair:ocasio Cortez represents the future of our party

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loans are a debt that you owe. It's an obligation.

If they aren't "bad", then why complain about paying them?

In exchange for what? Debt run up to pay for a degree in a poor paying profession is not smart. Which is why following one’s passion is not always wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

I’ve put two kids through college, next year a third. We are not poor. So we saved and invested money. The old fashioned way. Why don’t you do the same? You chose to do this site. If it doesn’t pay enough for your kids’ college, the taxpayer should not be expected to pick up that burden.

Your last statement regarding co-op is definitely a first world problem. Life is not always about what makes us happy. It’s about survival. You pick something that pays, learn that skill, and later on you have the luxury of change

This is beyond the pale hypocrisy. You have no problem using this site, the fruit of Jeff's labor, as a platform to trumpet your privileged viewpoint, and at the same time excoriate Jeff for operating it as his occupation.

Let them eat cake!

The idea that a coop would not work due to the luxury of indecision is the very definition of privilege. Loans are not a bad thing either.

Agree. I'm the PP from last night with the list of 10 ways to make college affordable.

SOME burden, or compromise, must be made by the students. It doesn't have to be a solution where the only answer is: government pays for 100% of the college education. If that means starting at community college, or taking a half-load while working 25 hours a week, or enrolling in a co-op program where you must declare a major by sophomore year, or any of the other cost-saving measures listed above, that's fine.

The other thing is that there is a desire on the part of democratic socialists like Cortez, and it sounds as if the moderator agrees, to eliminate all college debt - that a 22-year-old should enter the workforce with a degree paid for by someone else, completely debt-free.

This is neither realistic nor necessary. The key is to keep the debt load to a manageable level. Incorporating some of the cost-saving ideas above, and enrolling in a state college (many are very strong) will leave a young adult with minimal debt.

The goal should not be free college. It should be graduation with minimal debt. But the worst situation, experienced by a large percentage of all those starting college, is to discover one is not cut out for college (for whatever reason), and drop out after a year or two. At that point, the student has incurred a lager amount of debt and has no degree or strong marketable skill.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
There you go. Now, you look at all those points below and tell me that's not exactly what the DNC and the DSA both want. This is EXACTLY what they have been working towards for the past 100 years.

This will be good.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Posts like this always pose the question as to whether the author is truly ignorant or simply malicious. The only items on your list supported by either the DNC or DSA are and 2 and 10. I would not be at all surprised to find out that today's Republicans oppose number 10. Ironically, those of you arguing for coop universities seem to be fully supporting the second sentence of number 10.

It's hard to conceive that you actually believe that the DSA, let alone the DNC, supports most of the items on this list. So, I assume that you are simply trolling.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that a coop would not work due to the luxury of indecision is the very definition of privilege. Loans are not a bad thing either.

There are lots of reasons that a coop would not work. That might be a good solution for a limited number of students, but do you really believe our job market is ready for tens of millions of employees to be entering and leaving the job market each term -- in jobs capable of providing a salary that pays a significant portion of tuition? The idea just doesn't scale.

One of the hallmarks of centrists, especially moderate Democrats, has been to come up with extremely complicated solutions to fairly simple problems. The problem of university education being extremely expensive and causing significant debt for graduates is not that complicated. Simple solutions are available.

When I went to school--way back in the dark ages--there were quite a few on co-op--but, as I recall--almost all of them were engineering students.

.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

That's rather disingenuous of you to first ridicule the opinions of others by stating that "every major Western democracy has figured out how to provide affordable college", and then concede that it's an open question how restrictive it would be when challenged. I support free community college for all - anyone who wants to go should be able to go. More selective public universities should be barred from building expensive showy buildings that are not at the core of their mission to research and educate - 40 million dollar exercise club/gyms, indoor practice fields, etc. Furthermore there should be a requirement for public funded universities to rebate students any surpluses that the university runs at the end of the year - if they need to hold on to funding for future projects these must be approved by an oversight body and be actually used for that purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loans are a debt that you owe. It's an obligation.

If they aren't "bad", then why complain about paying them?

In exchange for what? Debt run up to pay for a degree in a poor paying profession is not smart. Which is why following one’s passion is not always wise.

And that is the student's responsibility. Majoring in a soft liberal arts degree at a fancy $50k a year college, is not smart.

But think what would happen if Cortez succeeded in her dreams. We would have millions of college students graduating with useless degrees, and for which we - the taxpayer - are on the hook.

I could see a scenario where the government paid the tuition for qualified students majoring in STEM areas where Americans are coming up short. So that's another way to do it - free college for specific majors to top-scoring students, who are likely to succeed.

[Anonymous]

A Death tax. Confiscation of more and more of your pay check. A VAT tax. The "fairness doctrine". A guaranteed government job, which is part of Ocasio's platform.

"gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. "

Tesla, wind turbines, state owned enterprises and utilities, more and more regulation on every industry until all players fall and competition cease. Than the government moves in and takes them over for "the greater good".

The institution of Dodd-Frank.

ALL the big things in your life (mortgage, retirement, insurance, banking, education) are heavily regulated by bureaucrats. That's what the DNC and DSA long for. Only, they want more and more of it: universal basic income, child care, not just school lunches, but school breakfasts and dinners.

A "perfectly planned" society where all outcomes are equal is what they long for and they work tirelessly towards it.

If you ain't seeing it, you ain't looking.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There you go. Now, you look at all those points below and tell me that's not exactly what the DNC and the DSA both want. This is EXACTLY what they have been working towards for the past 100 years.

This will be good.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Posts like this always pose the question as to whether the author is truly ignorant or simply malicious. The only items on your list supported by either the DNC or DSA are and 2 and 10. I would not be at all surprised to find out that today's Republicans oppose number 10. Ironically, those of you arguing for coop universities seem to be fully supporting the second sentence of number 10.

It's hard to conceive that you actually believe that the DSA, let alone the DNC, supports most of the items on this list. So, I assume that you are simply trolling.

No. I am the one singing the praises of the co-op model, and this is not the same as "free education for children in govt schools." Those in co-ops are not getting a "free" education - they are working their way through, with alternating work and academic semesters.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. I'm the PP who listed 10 ways above to make college affordable.

Countries that offer free college limit who goes, and understandably so. It simply cannot be a free-for-all. When government (taxpayers) are funding free college, they naturally want to limit it to those who are likely to succeed.

And to the moderator: why would you say I might as well not list federal and state grants? I know some vey poor people who got through (modestly priced) state college with grants, and fully, when combined with a part-time job during the school year and full-time each summer.

My personal belief as to how to solve the problem is to go the co-op model. Students alternate between "work semesters" (which are related to the student's major and provide valuable contacts in addition to decent earnings) and "class semesters" (which are the traditional academic semesters). It can take five or even six years to complete (bear in mind that only about 60% of students graduate within six years from "regular" schools), but they graduate with minimal debt, if any, and valuable work experience in their field.

You know very poor people who got by on grants. What percentage of college students are "very poor people"? If you are not a very poor person, you don't get a grant. Instead you get a loan.

The proposals for free college tuition that I've seen only apply to state institutions. Private universities will still be around just as we have private schools despite having free public schools. It's an open question as to how restrictive the free schools would have to be.

Your co-opt idea sounds good except that many students have no idea what they want to study when first entering college. I certainly didn't. I would have had no idea what work experience fit my major because I didn't have a major until I was a junior.

That's rather disingenuous of you to first ridicule the opinions of others by stating that "every major Western democracy has figured out how to provide affordable college", and then concede that it's an open question how restrictive it would be when challenged. I support free community college for all - anyone who wants to go should be able to go. More selective public universities should be barred from building expensive showy buildings that are not at the core of their mission to research and educate - 40 million dollar exercise club/gyms, indoor practice fields, etc. Furthermore there should be a requirement for public funded universities to rebate students any surpluses that the university runs at the end of the year - if they need to hold on to funding for future projects these must be approved by an oversight body and be actually used for that purpose.

These are good ideas. I hope they can be implemented.

My point about restrictions is being misunderstood because I didn't explain it well. Because we have a robust system of private colleges and universities for which, as far as I know, nobody is proposing to provide free tuition, the universe of college and university seats is not limited to those that would be government funded. If the government-funded slots were restricted, there would still be opportunities at private institutions. Moreover, as we see in the case of private K-12 schools, many students might not even consider the state schools regardless of price differences because they prefer the opportunities provided by private schools. As such, the need for restrictions in the US might not compare to the situation in other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. I am the one singing the praises of the co-op model, and this is not the same as "free education for children in govt schools." Those in co-ops are not getting a "free" education - they are working their way through, with alternating work and academic semesters.

But why is the education expensive in the first place. It didn't used to be out of sight expensive.

Because the government created ARTIFICIAL inducements to make it cheaper. The universities saw that "easy money", and they said the dollars are rolling in. Let's raise the cost because no one is complaining. "Uncle Sugar is providing; let's sop up all the money!"

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loans are a debt that you owe. It's an obligation.

If they aren't "bad", then why complain about paying them?

In exchange for what? Debt run up to pay for a degree in a poor paying profession is not smart. Which is why following one’s passion is not always wise.

And that is the student's responsibility. Majoring in a soft liberal arts degree at a fancy $50k a year college, is not smart.

But think what would happen if Cortez succeeded in her dreams. We would have millions of college students graduating with useless degrees, and for which we - the taxpayer - are on the hook.

I could see a scenario where the government paid the tuition for qualified students majoring in STEM areas where Americans are coming up short. So that's another way to do it - free college for specific majors to top-scoring students, who are likely to succeed.

I think this would be a great starting point for a discussion. I think this points to one reason we benefit from officials like Sanders or Ocasio Cortez is that they push the envelope. While few may agree with their ideas initially, they create room for a discussion. Some aspects of their ideas may gain traction.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There you go. Now, you look at all those points below and tell me that's not exactly what the DNC and the DSA both want. This is EXACTLY what they have been working towards for the past 100 years.

This will be good.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

Posts like this always pose the question as to whether the author is truly ignorant or simply malicious. The only items on your list supported by either the DNC or DSA are and 2 and 10. I would not be at all surprised to find out that today's Republicans oppose number 10. Ironically, those of you arguing for coop universities seem to be fully supporting the second sentence of number 10.

It's hard to conceive that you actually believe that the DSA, let alone the DNC, supports most of the items on this list. So, I assume that you are simply trolling.

No. I am the one singing the praises of the co-op model, and this is not the same as "free education for children in govt schools." Those in co-ops are not getting a "free" education - they are working their way through, with alternating work and academic semesters.

Right, you are essentially supporting the "Combination of education with industrial production" part of Number 10. I'm not criticizing that, but just pointing it out as somewhat ironic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that a coop would not work due to the luxury of indecision is the very definition of privilege. Loans are not a bad thing either.

There are lots of reasons that a coop would not work. That might be a good solution for a limited number of students, but do you really believe our job market is ready for tens of millions of employees to be entering and leaving the job market each term -- in jobs capable of providing a salary that pays a significant portion of tuition? The idea just doesn't scale.

One of the hallmarks of centrists, especially moderate Democrats, has been to come up with extremely complicated solutions to fairly simple problems. The problem of university education being extremely expensive and causing significant debt for graduates is not that complicated. Simple solutions are available.

When I went to school--way back in the dark ages--there were quite a few on co-op--but, as I recall--almost all of them were engineering students.

.

Yes, that's true....they are largely STEM programs, although there are a few others. I would like to see them extended to include all marketable degrees. That's a way of telling students that if they choose to focus on a marketable program, there's a way for them to afford college. Those who insist on following their passion - history or art or whatever - will be on their own, financially. The idea that we should pay $100,000 for a kid to get a degree in philosophy is foolish.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
These are good ideas. I hope they can be implemented.

My point about restrictions is being misunderstood because I didn't explain it well. Because we have a robust system of private colleges and universities for which, as far as I know, nobody is proposing to provide free tuition, the universe of college and university seats is not limited to those that would be government funded. If the government-funded slots were restricted, there would still be opportunities at private institutions. Moreover, as we see in the case of private K-12 schools, many students might not even consider the state schools regardless of price differences because they prefer the opportunities provided by private schools. As such, the need for restrictions in the US might not compare to the situation in other countries.

Cool, thanks for the additional thoughts. I would generally shy away from regulation that impact/restrict individuals, and favor far more regulations that impact/restrict institutions. I think governments picking who can and who can't attend college/university using some test is tyranny. Let me illustrate this also with the example of student loans. In the 90s and throughout the 2000s the US government made it a policy to make it easier for students to obtain loans. This greatly increased the money supply in the education sector and universities both public and private were all too agreeable to accept it. It's a vicious cycle: universities are costly so students get loans, the loans allow the universities to charge an even higher price next year, which in turn increases the need for loans. This is why we have so many students graduate with such substantial student loans. Many opponents of this phenomenon places the blame on the student loans themselves, saying that the government should pick and choose what loans to underwrite based on field of study. I believe the government or any central planning body is piss poor at picking winners and losers. The government should shift their focus on regulation of capital projects spending and treatment of surpluses by the public universities - which they have a right to regulate since they are public funded at least in part. If the public universities return once more to being an affordable source of high quality education, they will in turn place pricing pressures on the private institutions to draw students with a more affordable tuition.

[Anonymous]

And, some students took out loans for more than tuition and room and board. Some took out way more than needed--and, are paying for it now.